147 Answers

WOW! Another 19 straight hours of posting by the leftist Muslim Atheist poster. It has posted under 6 different aliases and is still posting. What kind of life does he have? It's sad, lonely and full of hate. He better get those butt sores checked.

It is unfortunate that leftist war mongers can only commit themselves to dark delusions and mindless hate.
Is there a way to forgive them, considering that they act out the bitterness of terrorists, now at war against Israel?
Leftists have always been heartless warmongers.
Some people never learn.

Ten months after its historic passage, four federal trial judges have evaluated the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010. The two Republican appointees who have looked at the health care reform law have deemed it unconstitutional -- an unlawful overextension of congressional power. But the two Democratic appointees who have looked at the law have declared it constitutional -- a rational expression of Congress' authority to regulate a form of commerce. How could the same statutory language and legal precedent generate such disparate conclusions?

The best likely explanation is the most simple: the language of the Constitution and Supreme Court precedent on the topic have left enough ambiguity to permit wildly different interpretations from the lower court judges.

Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the Constitution tells us that the Congress "shall have power...to regulate Commerce... among the several states." This vague command has been interpreted over the past 200 years or so to permit federal regulation over activity so long as that activity "substantially affects" (has a substantial effect upon) interstate commerce. So what does "activity" really mean? And what does "substantial effect" mean? Judging from the early results, the answer reads like the old lawyer joke: ask four judges for their views and you'll get five opinions.

On Monday, U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson, a 1983 Reagan appointee now sitting with senior status in the Northern District of Florida, ruled that the Affordable Care Act is unconstitutional because it seeks to regulate inactivity-- an individual's choice not to buy health insurance. There is a legal difference, Vinson wrote, between economic decisions, which all of us make at one point or another in our lives, and economic activities which might be regulated under the Commerce Clause if they "substantially affect interstate commerce." In his view, the Act sought to regulate the first, and not the second, and thus failed. At least that's where this judge wiggled to in the room left for him in the Constitution and Supreme Court precedent.

But another judge wiggled over to a completely different spot. In November, U.S. District Judge Norman K. Moon, a 1997 Clinton appointee now sitting with senior status in the Western District of Virginia, ruled the Act constitutional because it involves activity. Moon wrote: "Regardless of whether one relies on an insurance policy, one's savings, or the backstop of free or reduced-cost emergency room services, one has made a choice regarding the method of payment for the health care services one expects to receive. Far from 'inactivity,' by choosing to forgo insurance, Plaintiffs are making an economic decision to try to pay for health care services later, out of pocket, rather than now, through the purchase of insurance." One of these veteran judges, of course, will in turn be judged dead wrong by the United States Supreme Court.

Another Republican judge, U.S. District Judge Henry Hudson of Virginia, an appointee of George W. Bush, determined that the Act seeks to take Commerce Clause jurisprudence to a place where it has never gone before -- a "bridge too far" is how Vinson put it Monday. But Democratic U.S. District Judge George Steeh of Michigan, also a Clinton appointee, concluded that the Act fits comfortably within existing legal precedent. The Republican jurists claim they are acting with judicial restraint even as they assert their authority to strike down an act of Congress. The Democratic jurists claim they are acting with judicial deference even as they endorse another application of the Commerce Clause.

The Republican judges have blocked the measure because they believe its future application lacks logic and consistency -- that if the Congress can regulate a decision about individual health insurance there's no stopping what it can regulate. Both Vinson and Hudson wrote about the possible parade of legislative horribles if the Act were declared constitutional. The Democratic jurists have endorsed the measure because they believe it is a rational legislative effort to confront a current national problem. No one is seeking to force someone to eat french fries, Steeh and Moon have argued, and no one ever will.

All four judges agree -- either explicitly or implicitly in their rulings -- that they will not have the final say on the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act. Like the rest of us, they know that this dispute is going to the Supreme Court and will be decided by the justices, who are just as ideologically riven as the four trial judges appear to be. This is especially true in these cases since they each have been addressed on motions and short of trial. This means that the appellate judges, and especially the justices in Washington, don't have to give any "due deference" to these trial court "findings."

We'll know in a year or so which of these lower court judges correctly evaluated constitutional law in light of what they each think the Supreme Court will think of the matter. Two of these jurists will be vindicated. Two will be relegated. And perhaps that's the real lesson in all of this: in an age where the Constitution has become a political football, it's really still just what the federal courts say it is at any given time. That's not a terribly noble thought. But it's the truth.

Appearing in "The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion", a work of fiction that has circulated among anti-Semites since the Middle Ages, the "blood libel" is the particularly vicious canard that claims Jews kidnap Christian children and use their blood to bake matzo for Passover; it has been used for centuries from everyone from the Nazis to modern Arabs to justify their hatred for Jews. As a metaphor for vicious false charges, it has been widely used by, among others, MSNBC and the New York Times.

Sarah Palin is taking heat for invoking the term "blood libel" to describe the false blame heaped on her and other Conservatives for the Tucson massacre, on the supposed grounds that she trivialized that term and by doing so showed insensitivity to Jews. While I feel that casually labeling people "Nazis" does tend to trivialize the real Nazis and their horrors, I thought Palin's use of the term "blood libel" was not inappropriate.

There is usually only a limited amount of damage that can be done by dull or stupid people. For creating a truly monumental disaster, you need people with high IQs. Such people have been told all their lives how brilliant they are, until finally they feel forced to admit it, with all due modesty. But they not only tend to over-estimate their own brilliance, more fundamentally they tend to over-estimate how important brilliance itself is when dealing with real world problems.

Our friend and colleague Frank Gaffney, President of the Center for Security Policy, posted an excellent column yesterday (see below) on the threat the Muslim Brotherhood poses in Egypt.

Gaffney will be a guest on an upcoming episode of our new TV show, premiering this weekend (February 5th at 2:30 PM ET on Family Net; February 6th at 4:00 PM ET on ALN).

It is troubling that so many in our government and the media are unwilling to thoroughly investigate Muslim Brotherhood-connected organizations in the U.S.. This is one reason why our Citizens Appeal to the 112th Congress has a plank dealing with the Muslim Brotherhood.

If you haven’t already signed this appeal, please add your name today.

One more note about Egypt. On Friday Andrew Bostom posted a reminder from a column he wrote almost four years ago:

In a rigorously conducted face-to-face University of Maryland/ WorldPublicOpinion.org [3] interview survey [4] of 1000 Egyptian Muslims conducted between December 9, 2006 and February 15, 2007, 67% of those interviewed-more than 2/3, hardly a “fringe minority”-desired this outcome (i.e., “To unify all Islamic countries into a single Islamic state or Caliphate”). The internal validity of these data about the present longing for a Caliphate is strongly suggested by a concordant result: 74% of this Muslim sample approved the proposition “To require a strict [emphasis added] application of Shari’a law in every Islamic country.”

The Muslim Brotherhood is the EnemyPosted by Frank Gaffney Jan 30th 2011

Suddenly, Washington is consumed with a question too long ignored: Can we safely do business with the Muslim Brotherhood?

The reason this question has taken on such urgency is, of course, because the Muslim Brotherhood (or MB, also known by its Arabic name, the Ikhwan) is poised to emerge as the big winner from the chaos now sweeping North Africa and increasingly likely to bring down the government of the aging Egyptian dictator, Hosni Mubarak.

In the wake of growing turmoil in Egypt, a retinue of pundits, professors and former government officials has publicly insisted that we have nothing to fear from the Ikhwan since it has eschewed violence and embraced democracy.

For example, Bruce Reidel, a controversial former CIA analyst and advisor to President Obama, posted an article entitled “Don’t Fear Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood” at the Daily Beast. In it, he declared: “The Egyptian Brotherhood renounced violence years ago, but its relative moderation has made it the target of extreme vilification by more radical Islamists. Al Qaeda’s leaders, Osama bin Laden and Ayman Zawahiri, started their political lives affiliated with the Brotherhood but both have denounced it for decades as too soft and a cat’s paw of Mubarak and America.”

Then, there was President George W. Bush’s former press spokeswoman, Dana Perino, who went so far on January 28th as to tell Fox News “…And don’t be afraid of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. This has nothing to do with religion.”

One reason we might be misperceiving the MB as no threat is because a prime source of information about such matters is the Muslim Brotherhood itself. As the Center for Security Policy’s new, best-selling Team B II report entitled, Shariah: The Threat to America found: “It is now public knowledge that nearly every major Muslim organization in the United States is actually controlled by the MB or a derivative organization. Consequently, most of the Muslim-American groups of any prominence in America are now known to be, as a matter of fact, hostile to the United States and its Constitution.”

In fact, for much of the past two decades, a number of these groups and their backers (including, notably, Saudi billionaire Prince Alwaleed bin Talal) have cultivated extensive ties with U.S. government officials and agencies under successive administrations of both parties, academic centers, financial institutions, religious communities, partisan organizations and the media. As a result, such American entities have been subjected to intense, disciplined and sustained influence operations for decades.

Unfortunately, the relationships thus developed and the misperceptions thus fostered are today bearing poisonous fruit with respect to shaping U.S. policy towards the unfolding Egyptian drama.

A notable example is the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR). A federal judge in the 2008 Holy Land Foundation trial – which successfully prosecuted the nation’s largest terrorism financing conspiracy – found that CAIR was indeed a front for the Ikhwan’s Palestinian affiliate, Hamas. Nonetheless, Fox News earlier today interviewed the Executive Director of CAIR’s Chicago office, Ahmed Rehab, whom it characterized as a “Democracy Activist.”

True to form, Rehab called for the removal of Mubarak’s regime and the institution of democratic elections in Egypt. This is hardly surprising since, under present circumstances, such balloting would likely have the same result it did in Gaza a few years back: the triumph of the Muslim Brotherhood and the institution of brutally repressive theocratic rule, in accordance with the totalitarian Islamic politico-military-legal program known as shariah.

An important antidote to the seductive notions being advanced with respect to the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt – and, for that matter, in Western nations like ours – by the Ikhwan’s own operatives, their useful idiots and apologists is the Team B II report. It should be considered required reading by anyone who hopes to understand, let alone to comment usefully upon, the MB’s real character and agenda.

For example, Shariah: The Threat to America provides several key insights that must be borne in mind in the current circumstances especially:

“The Muslim Brotherhood was founded in Egypt in 1928. Its express purpose was two-fold: (1) to implement shariah worldwide, and (2) to re-establish the global Islamic State (caliphate).

“Therefore, Al Qaeda and the MB have the same objectives. They differ only in the timing and tactics involved in realizing them.

“The Brotherhood’s creed is: ‘God is our objective; the Koran is our law; the Prophet is our leader; jihad is our way; and death for the sake of Allah is the highest of our aspirations.’”

It is evident from the Creed, and from the Brotherhood’s history (and current activities)…that violence is an inherent part of the MB’s tactics. The MB is the root of the majority of Islamic terrorist groups in the world today.

The Muslim Brotherhood is the ‘vanguard’ or tip-of-the-spear of the current Islamic Movement in the world. While there are other transnational organizations that share the MB’s goals (if not its tactics) – including al Qaeda, which was born out of the Brotherhood – the Ikhwan is by far the strongest and most organized. The Muslim Brotherhood is now active in over 80 countries around the world.

Of particular concern must be the purpose of the Brotherhood in the United States and other nations of the Free World:

“…The Ikhwan’s mission in the West is sedition in the furtherance of shariah’s supremacist agenda, not peaceful assimilation and co-existence with non-Muslim populations.”

“The Ikhwan believes that its purposes in the West are, for the moment, better advanced by the use of non-violent, stealthy techniques. In that connection, the Muslim Brotherhood seeks to establish relations with, influence and, wherever possible, penetrate: government circles in executive and legislative branches at the federal, state and local levels; the law enforcement community; intelligence agencies; the military; penal institutions; the media; think tanks and policy groups; academic institutions; non-Muslim religious communities; and other elites.

“The Brothers engage in all of these activities and more for one reason: to subvert the targeted communities in furtherance of the MB’s primary objective – the triumph of shariah.”

In short, the Muslim Brotherhood – whether it is operating in Egypt, elsewhere in the world or here – is our enemy. Vital U.S. interests will be at risk if it succeeds in supplanting the present regime in Cairo, taking control in the process not only of the Arab world’s most populous nation but its vast, American-supplied arsenal. It is no less reckless to allow the Brotherhood’s operatives to enjoy continued access to and influence over our perceptions of their true purposes, and the policies adopted pursuant thereto.

She is the gift that keeps on giving, the Sunday comic strip that keeps adding frames the following Monday through Saturday. She is the wind beneath Mo'Kelly's wings.

God bless Sarah Palin and God bless America.

There are some days when it seems all is lost; the general public seems altogether confused as to whether the Republican Party is bereft of common sense and intellectual honesty. Then along comes Sarah Palin, like any Law & Order episode in its 53rd minute, to set the record straight.

They are.

Every single day, Sarah Palin is as dependable as Kaopectate and ADA Jack McCoy. Be not deceived, Sarah Palin is doing her part to singlehandedly unravel the GOP, and it's time the Democratic Party got behind her and became fully vested in the "Palin for President" movement for 2012.

Every single day, the former governor of Alaska and former Vice Presidential candidate offers up inappropriate, inaccurate and/or ill-conceived commentary, embarrassing herself, her political affiliation and subsequently anyone who has ever publicly supported her.

Mo'Kelly hopes and prays for Palin to declare her candidacy for president in 2012. Instead of rebutting Democratic policymakers with ridiculous theories, such as blaming Sputnik for the collapse of the Soviet Union; Palin can engage in pointed primary debate with fellow Republican Mike Huckabee on "family values." In fact, one or some of the prostitutes her husband Todd allegedly "knew" (in the Biblical sense) can be interviewed for post-debate reaction.

Alleged. Yes, Mo'Kelly did say "alleged."

Maybe daughter Bristol will be on her way to birthing illegitimate child #2 and working legitimate job #1 by this time.

Maybe... just spitballing. Huckabee vs. Palin on family values. This just has to happen.

There are innumerable possibilities here. You just have to approach this with an open mind and trust in the train wreck that is Sarah Palin.

As opposed to engaging in partisan debates with inappropriate phrases like "blood libel," against the backdrop of the actual bloodshed in the tragedy in Tucson, maybe Sarah Palin can debate Keynesian economic theory with Mitt Romney relative to the Great Recession. Bear in mind, Palin can see Alaska First Bank & Trust from her backyard. This could get interesting.

No, we don't want you to shut up Sarah Palin, that would be the last thing in the world Mo'Kelly wants you to do. Keep it coming.

Free Sarah Palin! She is the victim in all of this, right?

Or imagine Palin and Congresswoman Michele Bachmann squaring off in a white, padded rubber room in the shape of an octagon. The combatants could duke it out for the title of who is less crazy and thus more unfit to serve as the titular head of the Tea Party. Instead of throwing punches, they could throw out the most incendiary, hateful rhetoric at each other, usually reserved for Democrats and garden variety minority groups. We could even break out Tina Turner in that sexy Mad Max: Beyond Thunderdome outfit to referee. Michael Buffer has yet to text Mo'Kelly back as to his availability.

If it ends in a tie, we'll bring out celebrity judge Mel Gibson to assess which of the combatants managed to be more anti-minority, anti-immigration, anti-gay and anti-Semitic overall. Why Gibson you ask? Well... he is an authority. Name someone else with as many qualifications and (former) star power...

Didn't think so.

Let's give credit where credit is due. Not only that, the whole Beyond Thunderdome motif works better with Gibson and Turner working together in tandem. See the bigger picture folks. This is about ratings and PPV buys. Gibson is the logical choice. Somebody get publicist Alan Nierob on the phone and make this happen.

But Mo'Kelly digresses. God bless Sarah Palin and God bless America.

Or how about this...

Imagine a "Lightning Round" primary debate between Palin and former Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty over the methods to improve the American educational system. Gov. Pawlenty could lay out his Minnesota Academic Standards program and Palin could "refudiate" it with the fact that she can see Wasilla High School and all 12 of its teachers from her backyard. Or, she could follow it up with the fact that Pawlenty attended (only) one university and received two degrees, and she attended some six colleges to receive just one.

(There has to be an Alex Trebek/Wink Martindale/Gene Rayburn joke worthy of insertion here. There just HAS to be.)

(thinking...)

(thinking...)

Oh well, opportunity missed.

Moving on...

But we're assuming the score would be close down the stretch. If she was far behind on the scorecards, she could/would imply that Pawlenty is a "closet Nazi" given his German descent. She could play the "weak on terrorism" card, alleging Pawlenty was lax on keeping "illegal immigrant Canadians" out of Minnesota. Yes, when all else fails, fall back on irrational fear and illogical associations when your opponent is intellectually superior and supremely more qualified. That surely went over well in 2008.

We can't forget Palin Vs. Mississippi governor Haley Barbour.

Palin would again denounce all forms of socialism and likely accuse Barbour of being a "socialist" for using the "public option" of education in the form of attending public schools as a youth and eventually Ole Miss as a collegian. If that didn't work, she'd call him a socialist for using the "public option" of the mail service, (better known as USPS) to send his Christmas cards and "pal-ing around" with other socialists who attended public schools, sent Christmas cards via the the "socialized" public mail or were on Medicare.

How hilarious would it be to see the underwhelming Palin political machine flailing away at fellow Republicans with its unsharpened intellectual tools? Don't you just want to see Republican candidates openly ridicule her gaffes and lack of historical knowledge to serve their own individual political ends?

That's worth at least $54.95 on Pay-Per-View and an evite invitation to 37 of your closest, moderately-educated friends to come over and watch.

Sarah Palin debating Newt Gingrich on foreign policy would be nothing short of stupendous. No birth certificate for Palin to question, no cue cards to help her with the spelling and/or pronunciation of multisyllabic country names like..."Brazil" or "China." No crib notes on the worst ways to twist an anti-Semitic phrase for the purpose of making an ill-advised point. There would be no abacus to assist in the math necessary to analyze trade deficits; just Sarah Palin and her middle school equivalent education, all alone and on full display. Her Republican Party will mock her ad infinitum in the attempts to offer instead a "real" candidate for the White House.

You can't beat that with a bat. Sign me up, here is Mo'Kelly's credit card.

Democrats, just stay out of the way and let this train wreck happen. Contribute to her campaign fund if need be. A dollar for Palin is worth 12 for Obama.

Please, oh pretty please Sarah Palin, get in the race for the Oval Office. What will it take to make you spend some of that $1.3 million already in your coffers to take this Republican variety show on the road... but this time with you as the featured attraction? Tell Mo'Kelly what you need and it will be done. Just get in the race.

America needs you Sarah...just in the way that laughter is good for the soul. God bless Sarah Palin and God bless America

First it was his weepiness, now it's his smoking -- John Boehner just can't catch a break.

Near the end of an 18-minute interview on "Fox News Sunday" about the debt ceiling, GOP plans for spending cuts and other weighty matters, the new House speaker had to contend with two other vexing issues.

"Why don't you stop smoking?" host Chris Wallace asked.Boehner had a question of his own: "Why do we bring this up again?" he replied, a bit exasperated.

"It's a bad habit, but I have it. It's a legal product. I choose to smoke." He added with a smile, "Leave me alone."

The Ohio congressman was understandably annoyed, having just defended himself -- again -- over complaints that he cries too easily.

"I feel strongly about what I do. . . . I came here to do something on behalf of the American people," he said, appearing to tear up a bit over the subject that's become a touchy one since he was elected leader of the new Republican majority in the House. "I feel strongly about that. I get emotional. Last night at the Alfalfa Club dinner" -- an annual black-tie event at which Washington's high and mighty poke fun at each other -- "if it weren't for my emotions, I don't know if they had anything else to talk about."

Denying that the inclusion of GOProud, a gay Republican group, has anything to do with his decision, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) has announced that he won't be attending this year's CPAC conference:

The newly-elected lawmaker will be focused on his Senate duties that week then "return to Florida for a working weekend capped off by the Pinellas County Lincoln Day Dinner," on Feb. 12, spokesman Alex Burgos told the Buzz.

Oh, sure. Because everyone knows that a Senator can't take an hour out of his busy schedule to zip four miles down the road for a chance to get in front of a room full of supporters and cameras.

Some commentators blame Sarah Palin, the Tea Party, or other conservatives for creating the angry climate in which Jared Loughner shot Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords and several other people. Some ...

More Questions

Unlike the Democrats, we sound thinking and honest Republicans still have plenty of energy. What a pity that the latest Rasmussen Polls put Democrats so far behind that they might as well not be on the ballot. Of course, that won't stop criminals from stuffing the ballot boxes with the names of ...

The voices that Rocmike hears in his head are getting crowded in his pea brain.---------------------------------------------------------------------Rocmike our insane porn posting schizo believes that he's dead yet he just posted under Mike Weaver and hobwabhob. Both names go to Mike Dykes Facebook ...

Sarah would be a great President. Brilliant, honest, and she don't have her followers register tomb stones to vote. the opposition is Hilary Clinton or maybe some body else, but it sure ain't gonna be Hilary in the lead. Even if she survives the election (at her old age that ain't likely) and she ...

Rocmike, we all know that you suffer from several mental illnesses one of them is that you're a schizophrenic. This would explain why you continue to post under aliases that go to your Mike Dykes Facebook profile page. Renner and Harley Spirit are 2 of them that you posted under today. You have many ...